2023 (3) TMI 501 - AT - Customs

Redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of goods - Mis-classification of imported goods - new Aluminium, Extrusion doors and panels or Aluminium Extrusion Scrap (trade) - request for mutilation of goods not accepted - visual examinations by officer cannot be preferred over and expert opinion about serviceability or otherwise of any imported goods - HELD THAT - The goods have been cleared and duty discharged as per the Tariff Heading proposed by the department. The Certificate of Chartered Engineer produced by the party is actually deficient, as it has been obtained behind the back of Customs Officials and does not show the time and date of entry at the port for examination of goods by this expert. Even the expertise in the field of Chartered Engineering is not coming forth on record, as also the language of the certificate does not indicate that the author is prepared to face legal scrutiny of its document and to get it examined as per law in case of need by the authorities. It is therefore found that the same has been correctly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Also, the party had made a request for mutilation of the imported consignment to indicate their bona fides which does not appear to have been considered by the department view of their acceptance of the department s stand exhibited through waiver of show cause notice as well as clearance of the consignments. It is noted that the party has already paid duty under the Tariff Heading proposed by the department and also shown its bona fides subsequent to the import as they sought mutilation of goods before clearance. The redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- and the personal penalty under Section 112 to Rs. 10,000/- - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Heading.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Rejection of Chartered Engineer Certificate.
4. Consideration of request for mutilation of goods.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported goods described as Aluminium Extrusion Scrap but were assessed as new Aluminium Extrusion doors and panels. Subsequently, after re-examination, the goods were found to be old and used aluminium structures. The dispute arose regarding the classification under CTH 7610 9010 instead of 7602 0010 as claimed by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment based on the re-examination results and rejected the appellant's contentions regarding contradictory reports and the validity of the Chartered Engineer Certificate.

Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
A redemption fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- were imposed by the joint Commissioner, which was upheld on appeal. The appellant contested the imposition, arguing that the department failed to mutilate the goods before clearance. The Tribunal noted that the goods had been cleared under the Tariff Heading proposed by the department, and although the Chartered Engineer Certificate was deficient, the party's request for mutilation was not considered by the department. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- and the personal penalty under Section 112 to Rs. 10,000/-.

Rejection of Chartered Engineer Certificate:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Chartered Engineer Certificate produced by the appellant as it was obtained behind the back of Customs Officials, lacked essential details, and did not demonstrate the author's willingness to face legal scrutiny. The Tribunal concurred with this decision, emphasizing the deficiencies in the certificate and its rejection as valid evidence.

Consideration of Request for Mutilation of Goods:
The party had requested mutilation of the imported consignment to demonstrate their good faith, which was not considered by the department due to their acceptance of the department's proposed Tariff Heading and clearance of the goods. Despite this, the Tribunal acknowledged the party's efforts to seek mutilation before clearance and reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty as a gesture towards the party's bona fides.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the reduction of the redemption fine and personal penalty, considering the circumstances surrounding the classification of goods, imposition of fines, rejection of the Chartered Engineer Certificate, and the request for mutilation of goods.